When Does Innocence End?

[jbor]

----------
>From: "Otto Sell" <o.sell at telda.net>
>To: "David Morris" <fqmorris at hotmail.com>, "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>,

> Again, how come that for the boy the name of god is a metaphor for being
> sodomized, if I'm wrong?

     ... to the boy, Ndjambi Karunga is what happens when they couple,
     that's all ... (100)

"Naming" of things is part of the whole "Christian sickness"/ Western
disease.

Enzian's statement -- "We make NK now omuhona" -- is just that, a statement.
It's not a question, not an expression of fear or resistance, nor even a
request. It's a statement. As Weissmann recognises (Enzian's rudimentary
command of the language is exemplified in his misuse of the timeless present
tense verb "make") what the statement indicates is that "the boy wants to
fuck".

I think there's a letter from Pynchon published somewhere in one of the
critical texts which was a request for information (or a thank you note for
same) on Herero culture and history in Sudwest at the time (1880s-1930s).

> They "corrupted" me too by instilling Christianity, all that shame and guilt
> thing - but I don't call "the name" at the "act" and brought up under
> Christian rules in an unchristian society hasn't made me gay, apart from the
> fact that I don't believe that homosexuality is a Christian sickness or a
> "malfunction" at all.

Exactly. So, why is Enzian's situation any different?

best